A couple of issues or so back, L. Neil Smith made the specious claim that
the State has begun, as he predicted, all manner of nasty intrusions into
the rights and privacy of women, and that this had happened because of
opposition to abortion. He used as supposed proof of this an instance of
a hospital bullying a woman when abortion was not an issue. Then he
complains that people object to his red herrings.

I answered, in detail, his irrational anti-libertarian "arguments" against
the rights of innocent human beings to life. I don't mind abortionists
claiming that they have a right to slaughter innocent lives, I do object,
however, to their irresponsible refusal to admit to the fact that they
are, indeed, advocating murder. And irresponsibility is what their
position is all about.

Subsequently he "replied" to an email from one Steve Lynes, if such a
string of straw men, red herrings, insults and irrational "conclusions"
can be considered to be a reply.

First, he trotted out the standard abortionist crap that an unborn baby is
not a human being but merely "a fetus" or something that might
"potentially become" human. This implies that anyone to whom one refers
using a medical or legalistic term is somehow de-humanised and that only
those who are "...wholly formed and finished..." are human. Using this
"logic" post-partum abortions should, and must, be permitted to any woman
who feels threatened and/or inconvenienced by neo-nates, adolescents, and
other "not wholly formed potential humans". An epidemic of post-partum
infanticides in recent years has shown that a great many women have
applied this insane feminist "logic" to "solve the problems" of motherhood.

Believing that he's gotten away with this cheap debater's trick, he rushes
on to hurl all the rest of the abortionist hysteria at the hapless reader:
the unborn cannot make choices and are helpless, therefor they have no
right to life, "...there is no baby yet... and the object has no rights."
That's cute: "the object". What an attitude toward life that indicates
there, El...

Then, disingenuously conflating an opposition to irresponsible sexual
promiscuity with " ...the words of someone who hates sex, women who
enjoy sex, or both," he plunges on. So now one must explain the obvious
fact that opposition to irresponsibility is not opposition to sex, even
though El Neil knows this full well. But, gee, it sure is a cool
diversion from rational debate, isn't it?

Next he stoops lower than I would have thought my friend to do; he insults
Steve by implying that he's a peeping Tom or a police statist because the
man argues for responsible behaviour! Then he leaps on Steve's (entirely
accurate) reference to the butchery of abortion as a "black art" to
justify implying that Steve believe that cameras steal souls. That's a
classic example of the straw man tactic, and a particularly ironic one
coming from a man who not only does not believe in the existence of the
soul, but insists that one is not allowed even to mention it in arguments.
(No doubt the "American Rules of Discourse" allow abortionists to use any
vocabulary and dishonest and insulting tactics they like, though. There's
always an exception, eh?)

Is it just me, or are those the tactics of someone who fears honest debate?

It's sad, but abortionists are always reduced to emotional outbursts and
insults, especially when their irresponsibility is exposed. Of course, I
like to see the bottom line in debates, no matter how ugly, because then
we can get down to the basics. And the basic fact is that abortionists
are not some kind of joyously "liberated" folk who are "enjoying sex" but
irresponsible potential adults who denigrate both human life and the
activity that leads to it.

But now things take a much uglier turn. El Neil exposes himself a little
more than he most likely intended, when he writes, "'Abortion stops a
beating heart'. So does a rat trap." We're supposed to think kindly of
lazy, promiscuous sluts but compare innocent humans to rats because they
cannot make choices?!? Helplessness is a crime, but murder is not?!?

Enough said.

In addition to El Neil's wonderfully revealing "reply" to Mr Lynes, we
were treated in the letters to the editor section to a "reply" to my
article refuting El Neil's "I Told You So". My correspondent, one Dennis
Lee Wilson, fires off a gratuitous insult; "What is KK (or MM) smoking..."
My, how cogent. I can't recall ever insulting (or even hearing of) Mr
Wilson, but if he likes to open up the insult box, then I can deal with
him quite handily.

First of all, you obnoxious twit, I replied to El Neil's article point by
point. What is your problem that you cannot understand simple English
and/or make a point by point rebuttal of things I actually wrote? I keep
thinking, "Gee, did Dennis read the article which I wrote?" Of course it
was probably hard for him to make out the words while leaping up and down
and foaming at the mouth.

In my article I pointed out that El Neil used some paranoid fantasies
about the State monitoring pregnant women as an excuse to promote
abortion. His entire "I Told You So" article ignored the fact that the
State has intervened to promote abortion in modern times, and that is why
I pointed out that fact, Dennis, you moron.

This fool claims that, "Smith's article is neutral on abortion itself."
To which I reply, "Bullshit." [I bet that Dennis is upset at being
insulted. It's too bad that he couldn't refrain from initiating this kind
of "discourse", but your kindly Kaptain is always willing to reply in
kind.]

The usual hypocritical posturing about "unity" and keeping a non-existent
"freedom movement" undivided is used as a further excuse for the demand to
promote abortion with impunity. Well, if those who are so concerned about
not "dividing" around this issue would stop raising it themselves in the
first place then I might be able to mislead myself into thinking they are
sincere about "unity". As it is, they only want to promote their criminal
irresponsibility without being challenged.

Finally, I'm all for "divisiveness" if it means cleaning out the
hypocrisy. I don't see any "freedom movement" because one does not existand
that is the fault of too many people who "conflate" criminal
irresponsibility with "freedom". Divisions are needed before any
meaningful movement for peace and liberty can be built.

I agree with many people on some things and disagree with them on others.
Dr Ron Paul is a good man, for example, but he is in favour of enough
Statism to keep them furriners out of the U.S. State. So I say he's in
the wrong there. Liberty and Customs & Immigration are mutually
exclusive, kiddies, no matter how nice a person advocates building
national walls.

I consider El Neil Smith to be a good personal friend, though I've never
met him offline. That said, one of my longest friends, a childhood friend
in fact, is a big shot with The Office of Homeland Security. I like the
guy but he's wrong as hell on a lot of things, and I am most decidedly not
on "his side".

So long as El Neil sees fit to publish my columns uncensored as he has
done for lo these many years, I shall continue to write them. I shall
also continue to call to task any and every one who promotes ideas which
are antithetical to liberty for all. I am not in league with anyone
advocating abortion and it should not be assumed that I am and/or that I
owe them a free pass on anti-life nonsense. Hell, I don't own anybody
anything but the truth as best I see it. And the truth is that I oppose
abortion and all who promote it.

One last reminder, Dennis: I didn't raise the issue, and I didn't initiate
the insulting, either.

As El Neil said, when it comes to the issue of the right to life, "You
don't really want me on your side, trust me."

Well, I'm not on the side of abortionists; I'm on the side of...

Peace and Libertyfor all, especially the unborn.

Manuel Miles is a Libertarian Christian and an inveterate iconoclast.
He challenges authorities, experts and conventional "wisdom". He is a
writer and itinerant pedagogue from Edmonton, Canada whose professed
ambition is "...to trample everyone's sensitivities, regardless of
their race, creed, colour, political persuasion, or what-have-you."
His few friends describe him as "a nasty bit of baggage," and they
are understating the case.